2019-11-07: Dear Sir,
This is an example of a ruling between the real Immigration Act Article 70 “Unqualified Labor” and the Immigration Act Article 73-2 “Sin which promoted illegal employment” “Illegal labor” has “foreigners who work illegally” and “businesses that hire illegally”, and “illegal labor crimes that do not qualify” are established. Prosecutors should “self-surrender”.
Part 1. To gain a deeper understanding of immigration laws,
you need to learn case studies in actual cases.
This is the trial of the “real” criminal law “assistance crime”.
There are serious judges in Japan.
This is a “case” of “innocence”.
2019.7.12 "Improved Defendant Case for Immigration Control Act Tokyo High Court Flat 30 (U) 2076"
(Summary of the case and purpose of appeal)
The summary of criminal facts is as follows.
Defendant B, who is a wife of the inner rim,
has A who is the “husband of the inner rim” who has Korean nationality.
On February 25, 2015, after landing in Japan,
he did not “renew period of stay” or “change of status of residence”.
“Defendant B”, the “inner wife”, knew that A was “remaining” in Japan,
“beyond” May 26 of the same year, the “expiration date of residence”.
“Defendant B” made A “residence” from around 27th of the same month to June 30, 2017,
such as “Home of Defendant B in Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo”.
Therefore, B assisted A by making it easier for A to remain
in Japan illegally beyond its period of stay.
The “intent of judgment” of “Appeal to the High Court” is as follows.
1) Although “deliberate” of “assistance of assistance and assistance” is not recognized,
“original judgment” that approved the formation
of “assistance offender” has “misidentification of fact”.
2) “The significance and limitations of assistance” have not been revealed to the accused.
Recognizing “unclearly the establishment
of assistance crimes” gives society an “excessive atrophy effect”
and violates Article 31 of the Constitution.
Also, like Defendant B, there are “many”
in Japanese society who live with “illegal survivors”.
Punishing only Defendant B “consciously” is “unfair” and “inequality”
and violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
3) The action of Defendant B is the fulfillment of the living
and assistance obligations under civil law applicable to the wife of the relative.
Whether illegality is excluded as B ’s “legitimate”;
“Although it lacks substantial illegality” “in spite of it”,
the “original judgment” that did not allow this is “incorrect application of laws”.
That ’s a great “judgment”.
This "Judge" is a "rare judge" who fully understands the Japanese constitution and law.
I would like this judge to show his "view" as a "Japanese judge"
for the "Immigration Case Violation Case" that I am appealing for.
The first thing is that the judge “gets up”.
It will continue tomorrow.
Please see "Bill of indictment" at the following "Site".
In this case, just by looking at this “bill of indictment”,
you can understand the “error of applicable law”.
Please see “English translation” and “Japanese text” PDFs.
Please be careful when handling personal information.
● Translation of English sentence “letter of indictment”
"Indictment against Yasuhiro Nagano KinGungaku"
English translation is for reference only. To be precise, do it yourself.
● Original Japanese text “letter of indictment”
"Indictment against Yasuhiro Nagano KinGungaku (Japanese)"
English translation is incorrect. Please see “PDF” above for English translation.
● Please see related laws. (Japanese and English translation)
1) Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act
Immigration Control and Refugee Recognition Act
2) Criminal law
3) Constitution of Japan
The Constitution of Japan
Part 2. I “sue” two things.
`` Revised November 4, 2019 ''
I'm not only Chinese and Philippine,
Fighting for many victims in the world.
It has been nearly 10 years since the incident. My life is limited.
If the world ignores “governance under the law”, it is natural to resolve it by terrorism.
1. Foreigners performed “illegal labor” other than “qualification of residence”.
But foreigners are innocent.
Only foreigners were punished for the immigration law article 70 “Illegal Labor Crimes”.
On the other hand, the Immigration Control Law punishes employers who are “causal”
of illegal labor under Article 73-2 of the Immigration Control Law
(crimes that promote illegal employment).
However, the Japanese judiciary “punished” foreigners only, but not “employers”.
This is clearly contrary to Article 14 “Principles of Equality under the Law”
of the Japanese Constitution.
It violates international law that prohibits "consciously" "punishing" only foreigners.
If an employer who hires a foreigner illegally is "innocent",
an illegally employed foreigner is also "innocent". .
2. The prosecution “applied” the crimes supporting other crimes
in Articles 60 and 62 of the Penal Code against Article 70 of the Immigration Act
on the grounds of “supporting the Immigration Law Article 22-4-4” Is an error in the law.
"Article 22-4-4 of Immigration Law" is the disposal
of those who have obtained the status of residence through fake application.
Previously, the Immigration Control Act was not subject to penalties
for those who obtained status of residence through false applications
(Article 70, Article 74-6).
The Amended Immigration Act was enacted at the 192nd Special Diet session
for those who obtained status of residence through falsification applications,
office workers who helped them, lawyers, administrative scriveners, and school staff.
“Effective from January 1, 2017”.
“I, KinGungaku, Philippine diplomat, Philippine embassy official” is 100% “innocent”.
“Reference”: A foreigner performed an act prescribed
in the Immigration Act Article 22-4-4 (Acquisition of status of residence
by submitting false documents). However, there is no “criminal punishment” for this.
Disposal is “cancellation of status of residence”
and “forced relocation” by the Minister of Justice.
Therefore, the “crime to support other crimes” in Articles 60 and 62
of the Penal Code is not applicable.
The “reason for crime” in Article 22-4-4 of the Immigration Act pointed out
by the “indictment” has no causal relationship with Article 70 of the Immigration Act.
The prosecution is “crush something in one's hand”.
However, “crush something in one's hand” by the state power is “stop”
of “aging, statistics of limitations”.
The materials are below.
There are many victims in the world.
Best regards. Yasuhiro Nagano
PS: The White House replied to me that I was seriously considering a solution
that would satisfy me with this issue.
I am waiting for the result I hope that there is no lie.
Please contact us if you have any questions.